↓ Skip to main content

If you can’t measure it- you can’t change it – a longitudinal study on improving quality of care in hospitals and health centers in rural Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
If you can’t measure it- you can’t change it – a longitudinal study on improving quality of care in hospitals and health centers in rural Kenya
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3052-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Marx, Christine Nitschke, Maureen Nafula, Mabel Nangami, Marc Brodowski, Irmgard Marx, Helen Prytherch, Charles Kandie, Irene Omogi, Friederike Paul-Fariborz, Joachim Szecsenyi

Abstract

The Kenyan Ministry of Health- Department of Standards and Regulations sought to operationalize the Kenya Quality Assurance Model for Health. To this end an integrated quality management system based on validated indicators derived from the Kenya Quality Model for Health (KQMH) was developed and adapted to the area of Reproductive and Maternal and Neonatal Health, implemented and analysed. An integrated quality management (QM) approach was developed based on European Practice Assessment (EPA) modified to the Kenyan context. It relies on a multi-perspective, multifaceted and repeated indicator based assessment, covering the 6 World Health Organization (WHO) building blocks. The adaptation process made use of a ten step modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness Method. To measure the 303 structure, process, outcome indicators five data collection tools were developed: surveys for patients and staff, a self-assessment, facilitator assessment, a manager interview guide. The assessment process was supported by a specially developed software (VISOTOOL®) that allows detailed feedback to facility staff, benchmarking and facilitates improvement plans. A longitudinal study design was used with 10 facilities (6 hospitals; 4 Health centers) selected out of 36 applications. Data was summarized using means and standard deviations (SDs). Categorical data was presented as frequency counts and percentages. A baseline assessment (T1) was carried out, a reassessment (T2) after 1.5 years. Results from the first and second assessment after a relatively short period of 1.5 years of improvement activities are striking, in particular in the domain 'Quality and Safety' (20.02%; p < 0.0001) with the dimensions: use of clinical guidelines (34,18%; p < 0.0336); Infection control (23,61%; p < 0.0001). Marked improvements were found in the domains 'Clinical Care' (10.08%; p = 0.0108), 'Management' (13.10%: p < 0.0001), 'Interface In/out-patients' (13.87%; p = 0.0246), and in total (14.64%; p < 0.0001). Exemplarily drilling down the domain 'clinical care' significant improvements were observed in the dimensions 'Antenatal care' (26.84%; p = 0.0059) and 'Survivors of gender-based violence' (11.20%; p = 0.0092). The least marked changes or even a -not significant- decline of some was found in the dimensions 'delivery' and 'postnatal care'. This comprehensive quality improvement approach breathes life into the process of collecting data for indicators and creates ownership among users and providers of health services. It offers a reflection on the relevance of evidence-based quality improvement for health system strengthening and has the potential to lay a solid ground for further certification and accreditation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Unspecified 6 12%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Social Sciences 9 18%
Unspecified 6 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 7 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,719,176
of 12,801,967 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,850
of 4,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,061
of 270,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,801,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them